Friday, January 28, 2011

O'Fallon Police Officer Exonerated

I realize we don't have enough detail to really make a judgment, but it seems to me the cops sometimes shoot people for disobedience rather than lethal threat.  What do you think?

St. Clair County State's Attorney Brendan Kelly says he plans no criminal charges against an O'Fallon police officer who shot and killed a 20-year-old woman on Nov. 8.

Kelly tells the Belleville News-Democrat a coroner's jury has found the shooting justified, and says he met with the dead woman's family on Tuesday to explain his decision before announcing it publicly on Wednesday.

A special agent of the Illinois State Police testified at the inquest that the shooting occurred as Officer Adam Taulbee was attempting to stop Alexandra Nance from attacking a man who had broken up with her. The agent said Taulbee told Nance told four times to drop her weapon and shot her when she failed to comply.

Taulbee has since returned to active duty.


  1. "I realize we don't have enough detail to really make a judgment, but I am going to anyway"

    Fixed your opening line for you MikeB

  2. Jim, Doesn't it seem to you that the cops sometimes shoot people for disobedience rather than for lethal threat?

  3. radliff17 has left a new comment on your post "O'Fallon Police Officer Exonerated":

    I read the article in Monday's paper about the family of Alexandria Nance suing the O'Fallon Police officer and the city of O'Fallon a year after her shooting. Usually I don't comment on things in the paper because they never surprise me but this I had to speak out on.

    Their lawsuit against Officer Taulbee cites five "charges" against him;

    * failed to wait for backup before confronting Alexandra Nance.
    * failed to position himself in a location where he did not have to use deadly force against Nance.
    * failed to use appropriate tactics and procedures other than to fire four shots at Nance.
    * fired more than one shot at the Nance when multiple shots were not necessary.
    * fired four shots at Nance when she did not pose a danger to Taulbee's life.

    Now I ask how in God’s name is this not a frivolous lawsuit? She was a young woman who was intoxicated, who had been removed from that scene earlier in the evening, who was taken to her fathers' house by her mother which had a gun and accessible transportation back to the scene, who called a friend stating she was going to kill her boyfriend, who then went BACK WITH A GUN!! Officer Taulbee was investigated by ISP and the shooting was ruled justifiable.

    I pose this question to the Nance Family:

    Hypothetically speaking, if Officer Taulbee had not shot her and he had not made a decision to ensure his and bystanders survival and Alexandria had shot and killed him, then proceeded to shot, injure, or kill her intended target and any who got in the way, would it be OK to SUE them for wrongful death because they

    *allowed access to a firearm to an emotionally disturbed and legally intoxicated subject.
    *allowed access to a motor vehicle to an emotionally disturbed and legally intoxicated subject.
    *failed to properly supervise an emotionally disturbed and legally intoxicated subject released to their care prior to the incident
    *failing to properly teach their daughter right from wrong, in that pointing, threatening with, or using a firearm to premeditate murder is a crime and not to do so in the presence of a commissioned police officer in the performance of his duties and not to drink in excess and drive with the intent to commit a felony.

    It sickens me that everyone wants to Monday morning quarter back every single decision a law enforcement officer makes. If every officer waited for back up when it came to a deadly force incident, there would be more Line of Duty deaths to report each year. To use appropriate tactics and procedures other than to fire four shots? How about drop the gun when you're told too or better yet, don't threaten anyone with a gun because they broke up with you. If Taulbee had fired one shot and missed and she fired and killed him, what then? He fired enough rounds to ensure hitting his target and eliminated a threat. If he had fired only one shot and hit her, we'd be hearing how he assassinated her. He ordered her several times to drop the gun. SHE failed to comply with a police officers' LAWFUL order. He fired four times, enough to ensure the threat was nullified. She most certainly posed a threat to Officer Taulbees' life and posed a threat to those in the house. I would have definitely shot her too had I been in his position. He probably didn't have time to wait for back up if he felt his life was in danger, he reacted, justifiably.

  4. THANK YOU...i have been arguing with my family on facebook, and saying the same thing you posted.... this man done his job, and the mother didnt. should he sue her parents for not teaching her right from wrong?
    i only make this anonymous, because i dont have a google account,and do not know what the other stuff means.

  5. I repeat, "disobedience rather than lethal threat," is not sufficient reason the shoot someone.

  6. Her disobedience was the lethal threat.